Digital Prototype Evaluation Rubric

Remember: digital prototyping is meant to test ideas, demonstrate/perfect behaviors, and construct well-structured classes. These are meant to be isolated (simple) programs designed for precise reasons. Unless there are specific reasons, we usually do not want to see multiple ideas being tested in one prototype.

The following are suggested criteria to consider when evaluating the presentations. Since most of the criteria are subjective, it is reasonable for you to apply your own rules (please do share yours if you care). You are only responsible for entering a number for each category.

· Prototype test interesting problems:

	5	4	3	2	1
You understand why they need the prototypes	Prototypes are very interesting and they are clear problems that must be addressed when building the game.	Prototypes are interesting and they seem like problems that must be addressed when building the game.	Prototypes are not very interesting but they do seem like problems that must be addressed when building the game.	Prototypes are interesting but it is unclear how they relate to building the game.	Prototypes are not interesting and it is unclear how they relate to building the game.
Prototypes are clearly separate modules and each with a well-defined purpose	Each prototype has a statement of purpose. All prototypes are in separate modules that worked.	Some prototypes have statements of purposes. All prototypes are separate modules some crashed.	Some prototypes have statements of purposes. Most prototypes are in separate modules, all functioned.	Some prototypes have statements of purposes. Most prototypes are in separate modules, some crashed.	All prototypes are in the same module.

· Prototype demonstrated feasibility:

	5	4	3	2	1
Prototype results are useful	It is clear how all the results can be used when building the game.	It is clear most of the results can be used in building the game.	Most of the results should be useful in building the game.	Some of the results may be useful in building the game.	No relevance between the prototype results and the game.
Prototypes worked	All of the demonstrated prototypes were functioning correct.	Most of the demonstrated prototypes worked.	Some of the demonstrated prototype worked correctly.	Most of the demonstrated prototypes do not function correctly.	Almost none of the demonstrated prototypes worked.

· Confidence in meeting deadline:

	5	4	3	2	1
Based on the demonstrated prototype solutions	Very sure that the team can complete their game as proposed	Somewhat sure that the team can complete their game as proposed	The team may be able to complete their game as proposed.	The prototypes demonstrated do not provide confidence that the team can meet the deadline.	It is very clear that the team will not be able to meet the demanding deadline.

· Prototype presentation is done well:

	5	4	3	2	1
Problem/solution clearly presented/demonstrated	Clear problem descriptions, solutions demonstrated, and related these to their game.	Clear problem descriptions, solutions demonstrated, and unclear relation these to their game.	Understand the problem/solution, some sense of how relate to the game.	Problem descriptions, solutions demonstration, and relation to game, all somewhat unclear.	Unclear what the problems are or the relevancy of solutions.
Well organized demo	Efficient use of demo time, all team members know their parts and participated in presentation	Efficient use of demo time, only some team members spoke	Most of the demo went well, most team members participated in presenting	Some of the demo went well, only some team members participated in presenting	Horrible use of time (e.g., cannot find executable, cannot find demo programs), team members seem do not belong on stage.